The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kandy Kruise[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar events run by the same organization:

Bundle of three articles concerning pseudo-charitable events run by the "Karma Foundation," whose mission statement declares "The mission of Karma Foundation is to provide our Members with remarkable luxury lifestyle services and unique experiences that enrich their lives, expand their spheres of influence and benefit noble charitable causes." And it gets worse, "Karma provides Members with Luxe Services for accessing sought-after hot spots including renowned nightclubs, hip restaurants, luxury hotels, unique experiences and much more around the world." In short, what we have here is a little garden of spam articles for a group providing overblown entertainment to self-important people while giving them tax deductions and tossing a few drops of leftover revenue to charity. (I wouldn't have such a cynical opinion of karmafoundation.COM if I could find a single news article reporting how much money actually goes to the charities -- as opposed to the unrelated karmafoundation.ORG, based in New Jersey, which has no splashy events but seems to spread money around more.) Not quite spammy or insignificant enough to speedy. No significant reliable sourcing or substantive coverage, for all the namedropping. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only links that might have demonstrated notability were borked, and frankly, the article is so much advertising that it isn't worth the effort to source an article that needs to be completely rewritten and is very likely not very notable. Not a valid reason, but if you are going to spam Wikipedia, a person should really try harder to insure the links even work. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of policy, to the above. AfD is articles for Deletion, not Articles for CLEANUP. The links show some notability. So it needs NPOV and COI/SPAM cleanup. then do it, don't just nominate for deletion. Cleanup, spam removal and deletion are 3 different things. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete press releases don't prove notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. WP:GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", not seeing anything like that here. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.